This is just a phase. I remember when Roger was just about winning EVERYTHING. The "critics" said "Roger's killing tennis"... So take it as a compliment. The really 'bad' players never gets credited for "killing tennis".

This is just a phase. I remember when Roger was just about winning EVERYTHING. The "critics" said "Roger's killing tennis"... So take it as a compliment. The really 'bad' players never gets credited for "killing tennis".

I get what you're saying but Roger drew crowds and ratings. Roger-Rafa off the charts.

Well, I don't come here to either argue nonstop or file a series of complaints, but that's the general norm where it's been discussed by some from time to time. Perhaps not on this thread but it's been discussed repeatedly and I had already told Luggy not to show personal preference as the normal standard model of tennis. It's just plain wrong.

But if I were to go to your initial post, then I have to say this, the name of this thread is overly dramatic and the statement, "This was Wimbledon and no one cared about it's final. The semis were much more anticipated and drew far more interest." is grossly exaggerated. I've already shown that ESPN has seen 2nd highest rating in 33 years. As to the 40% decline, that's been happening for a while now. It's been happening since the end of 80s when tennis especially Wimbledon saw highest ratings and it's been in decline since then.

Yeah, but I cleared it up. You know it. Like I said in my edit above. Since you chose to respond, you could have helped him understand what we are talking about. Why you went in another direction is beyond me...

Since when things are on topic here? It's hard to keep tracks of things. And Alex is being nothing but pain lately and I've just come from my vacation, so that's my excuse.

Fans don't really read through articles here especially articles that talk about tennis stats unless it favours their player and that's the truth. The truth of the matter is tennis has been in steady decline since the end of the 80s. Even Federer in his days or this rivalry Federer/Nadal couldn't save it from declining. And the reason why the 80s were so great was because not only players were great but also, they were colourful, flamboyant if you will. McEnroe had his temper tantrums; Lendl was a man of steel but he too had his cold temper; Connors would engage the crowd in a massive way and a bit later, Agassi with his on and off court notorious antics and colourful outfits. People loved it and they would turn the TV on to watch their matches. Today's players are mild mannered. Both Federer and Nadal are too goody goody with each other. Nole and Murray basically grew up together so they are more like friends and Sampras had always been a quiet champion. If tennis wants to see a higher rating then they will have to bring players who are very colourful in character. Federer has brought a lot of casual fans but that doesn't mean they all watch his matches. They are just happy he's won another Slam etc. It's pretty much like Tiger Woods. They don't watch his golf but they love him anyway and happy with the result. In fact, players like Federer damages the sport because once he retires not only all the casual fans will go away, but also, some of the hard core fans will go away too. Because at the end of the day, most fans solely care about results because it gives them the bragging right, but once you don't get it, it's all dullville. And it will take another few years for fans to take up on another player like Federer but only once they start producing results. And where would these two - Nole and Murray get fans when most are taken by Federer and Nadal? These very fans aren't going to become fans of these two simply because they see them as rivals nothing more. In fact, most of these fans probably hate them. Federer came into town when there was a certain gap - a gap that Sampras left behind so it was easy for him to establish his authority, but it was still lacking a true rivalry so when Nadal came into town as well, people was very ready to accept it. Both Nole and Murray came when these two were still dominating the tour and people weren't ready to see these two taking it away from them. In fact, both Nole and Murray had to go thru a lot adversities because of it. which only made their career harder. I wish people would be a bit more thoughtful in their takes before making a sweeping generalization.

And the Wimbledon men's final this Sunday has seen considerable success as I've already pointed out twice on two different threads. It's all good so far. And why shouldn't be British fans taken into account? Are they not fans just because they are British? It's like saying Federer's H2H vs Nadal doesn't count because the defeats are mostly on clay. Is clay outside tennis? No and no on both accounts and they should all be counted. The idea is to bring fans into the sport and not nationality.

I said if before and I'll say it again. Djokovic is fun to watch when he plays anybody else but Murray. All of their slam matches were beyond horrible. Hunting is right, he explained it well.

Babs, I admited I misread your initial post and then responded accordingly. Btw, give a chance to Prodigy. I've known him from MTF. he is a good guy.

now, as we all are BS here, more or less ... I'll say one thing. Many tennis fans are looking for new faces desperately. Me too btw. Nole fulfilled my wildest dreams ... 6 slams, YE #1 probably 3 years in a row etc. but I'm sort of moving on. I'll always love Nole but it's not that important any more.

I just can't find anybody that I really like. Call me picky, I just can't. Janowitcz is interesting but not my cup of tea. Sock, Tomic, Harrison, even my countryman Raonic ...they do nothing for me ...if I like their game, I have a problem with their personalities and vice versa.

No one wants to see drama between these players, or I'm living in my own fantasy world

I couldn't care less about FED-Nadal goody goody relationship, I wanna see tennis sold as it should be. When kid look back at Djokovic/Murray rivalry, what will they see?

It's not about you, Luggy. It's about tennis declining and if Nole and Murray are truly responsible for it and I've given my counter arguments, even though I admit I didn't want to get into this debate in the first place. I have given more than enough reasons and they are all true.

As it stands, Murry/Djokovic Wimbledon final did see 2nd highest rating in ESPN history in 33 years which means the last final that drew more attention was in 1980 and the other one was probably the 1999 Wimbledon final, the Sampras/Agassi one.

Emma, I'll give you a credit. That was a good post. I agree with you talking about colorful personalities back in 80s etc.

Unfortunately, I really doubt that Djokovic and Murray will ever be as popular as Fed/Rafa. They are good players, good guys but they just can't sell themselves. I don't mean it literary but you get the idea.. Andy as a Brit has better chances but no matter how you look at it, it's not happening for him either. The W final was huge just because AM is a Britt. the actual quality of tennis in that final was very poor.

I still think that if Djokovic was born in the States, he'd be huge.

It looks like there is a huge gap in tennis right now, youngsters can't deliver ... I guess some new kids will show up.

If you watch Nole/Murray matches back in 2006/07 (not against each other btw) you'll notice how different they were. I love both of them but it's too much pushing/grinding.

It's not about you, Luggy. It's about tennis declining and if Nole and Murray are truly responsible for it and I've given my counter arguments, even though I admit I didn't want to get into this debate in the first place. I have given more than enough reasons and they are all true.

As it stands, Murry/Djokovic Wimbledon final did see 2nd highest rating in ESPN history in 33 years which means the last final that drew more attention was in 1980 and the other one was probably the 1999 Wimbledon final, the Sampras/Agassi one.

Ofc its not about me and I wasn't talking about tv ratings or any stuff like that. I don't need tennis to go into that direction. Heck I was watching tennis in my country where tennis wasn't even in top20 sports on tv.

I totally understand that things don't stay on topic. But, again, there's a big difference between changing topics and what I'm calling to your attention: I understand someone just popping in without having any interest in reading a thread and saying the exact same thing that was discussed on page 1. That's expected. But neither of you were changing the topic. For some reason, you chose to regress. Even hunting said I've said over and over what I'm talking about. You know what I'm talking about. Then you choose to mischaracterize what I'm saying. Now the new guy to the thread thinks he hit pay dirt! when all he had to do was read page 1.

See the difference between changing topics and mischaracterizing what I'm saying? Especially in a thread that's addressed this very matter on page 1!

How do you distinguish or make differentiation between Murray and Djokovic game? What are different characteristic features of their games? Do this match up really bring interest to audience worldwide, like Federer vs Nadal (Aggressive vs Defensive) Sampras vs Agassi (Service and Volley vs Returner and Baseliners)...etc?

I didn't go deep with discussion. I didn't reply any of them. But I am thinking what Babblelot want to share his point of view can be simply asking these questions to people.

Like last time I answered Babblelot previous thread in February, I made similar comment.

Fans don't really read through articles here especially articles that talk about tennis stats unless it favours their player and that's the truth. The truth of the matter is tennis has been in steady decline since the end of the 80s. Even Federer in his days or this rivalry Federer/Nadal couldn't save it from declining.

I'd argue the opposite is true.

Quote

Federer has brought a lot of casual fans but that doesn't mean they all watch his matches. They are just happy he's won another Slam etc. It's pretty much like Tiger Woods. They don't watch his golf but they love him anyway and happy with the result. In fact, players like Federer damages the sport because once he retires not only all the casual fans will go away, but also, some of the hard core fans will go away too. Because at the end of the day, most fans solely care about results because it gives them the bragging right, but once you don't get it, it's all dullville.

I pretty much disagree with all of this but for this part, but those are the bozos on message boards. Most tennis fans don't post on message boards and don't suffer from this affliction.

Quote

And it will take another few years for fans to take up on another player like Federer but only once they start producing results. And where would these two - Nole and Murray get fans when most are taken by Federer and Nadal? These very fans aren't going to become fans of these two simply because they see them as rivals nothing more. In fact, most of these fans probably hate them. Federer came into town when there was a certain gap

Oh, I like this a lot, Emma! But, when you think about it, it does speak to what I'm talking about with respect to these guys not generating interest.

Quote

And why shouldn't be British fans taken into account? Are they not fans just because they are British? It's like saying Federer's H2H vs Nadal doesn't count because the defeats are mostly on clay. Is clay outside tennis? No and no on both accounts and they should all be counted. The idea is to bring fans into the sport and not nationality.

About the British fans, I was responding to Dallas's comments about "global" interest. Doing the math, when British fans put up #s that are off the charts, worldwide interest has declined more than the aggregate.

How do you distinguish or make differentiation between Murray and Djokovic game? What are different characteristic features of their games? Do this match up really bring interest to audience worldwide, like Federer vs Nadal (Aggressive vs Defensive) Sampras vs Agassi (Service and Volley vs Returner and Baseliners)...etc?

I didn't go deep with discussion. I didn't reply any of them. But I am thinking what Babblelot want to share his point of view can be simply asking these questions to people.

Like last time I answered Babblelot previous thread in February, I made similar comment.

It is no more boring than one attacking player (read ball basher) playing another attacking or aggressive player (again read ball basher) and when this happens, the match typically ends with 40 errors on each player's part.

Watch Federer vs Raonic where Federer uses more of his brain than his shanking game. Maybe you will learn something.

I totally understand that things don't stay on topic. But, again, there's a big difference between changing topics and what I'm calling to your attention: I understand someone just popping in without having any interest in reading a thread and saying the exact same thing that was discussed on page 1. That's expected. But neither of you were changing the topic. For some reason, you chose to regress. Even hunting said I've said over and over what I'm talking about. You know what I'm talking about. Then you choose to mischaracterize what I'm saying. Now the new guy to the thread thinks he hit pay dirt! when all he had to do was read page 1.

See the difference between changing topics and mischaracterizing what I'm saying? Especially in a thread that's addressed this very matter on page 1!

What I don't understand is the quick or over the top reaction and I don't mean only you but in general. It is still a small matter as I see it but somehow very quickly it becomes a big storm in a small teacup. I'd rather let it go since things do get off topic here very quickly and not every single fan is going be very on the subject. Prodigy is actually 20 (I think) and he's very new to this forum, so he may make a mistake here and there. Should be allowed really. And you don't even have to look at me because for the most part, on this discussion section at least, I have kept things on topic. Now look at Alex. He goes off topic most of the time and a lot of the time, especially lately, not in the nicest way. I don't see anyone reacting to that. I like a fair game.

How do you distinguish or make differentiation between Murray and Djokovic game? What are different characteristic features of their games? Do this match up really bring interest to audience worldwide, like Federer vs Nadal (Aggressive vs Defensive) Sampras vs Agassi (Service and Volley vs Returner and Baseliners)...etc?

I didn't go deep with discussion. I didn't reply any of them. But I am thinking what Babblelot want to share his point of view can be simply asking these questions to people.

Like last time I answered Babblelot previous thread in February, I made similar comment.

It is no more boring than one attacking player (read ball basher) playing another attacking or aggressive player (again read ball basher) and when this happens, the match typically ends with 40 errors on each player's part.

Watch Federer vs Raonic where Federer uses more of his brain than his shanking game. Maybe you will learn something.

My entire comment is not what you think about attacking player. I am asking does Djokovic vs Murray match up generate interest to tennis fan around the world. Certainly, it is not the case in Taiwan. I has to Babblelot's point in this case.

How do you distinguish or make differentiation between Murray and Djokovic game? What are different characteristic features of their games? Do this match up really bring interest to audience worldwide, like Federer vs Nadal (Aggressive vs Defensive) Sampras vs Agassi (Service and Volley vs Returner and Baseliners)...etc?

I didn't go deep with discussion. I didn't reply any of them. But I am thinking what Babblelot want to share his point of view can be simply asking these questions to people.

Like last time I answered Babblelot previous thread in February, I made similar comment.

It is no more boring than one attacking player (read ball basher) playing another attacking or aggressive player (again read ball basher) and when this happens, the match typically ends with 40 errors on each player's part.

Watch Federer vs Raonic where Federer uses more of his brain than his shanking game. Maybe you will learn something.

My entire comment is not what you think about attacking player. I am asking does Djokovic vs Murray match up generate interest to tennis fan around the world. Certainly, it is not the case in Taiwan. I has to Babblelot's point in this case.

I only watched a total of 15 minutes of the match.I find it boring when players use less than half the court.Likewise with 2 big servers going head to head ala Dr. Ivo and Big John just did. 2 TBs, very short points. Not much variety or imagination. Boring.